Non-admin inappropriately closed the discussion as snow keep before the discussion was allowed to run for the full 7 days; however, since the discussion at that time had two Redirect votes and four Keep votes, this hardly satisfies WP:SNOW. sstflyer 16:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Template:Useronline – Endorse. There is near-unanimous consensus here that the close was correct. It's less clear between, Endorse NAC vs Overturn NAC on purely procedural grounds and have an admin re-close with the same result. That seems like that's a policy issue which is best discussed elsewhere and not really germaine to the DRV proposal, so I'm just going to leave this alone. – -- RoySmith(talk) 13:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Unfortunately, this good-faith non-admin close is flawed. It failed to adequately take into account the copious amount the evidence provided, that the template does not serve any useful function, and is misleading in nearly all of its transclusions; and thus unreliable in every case. Furthermore, the closer relies on the number of !votes rather than their content - or in some cases the total absence of anything addressing the nominated template at all. Others are wholly dependent on impossible technical fixes. In response to my request to reconssider, the closer states that "the template was edited in the course of the discussion to admit it might be incorrect" - itself further evidence that it serves no useful purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closure strongly endorsed (or overturn closure to "keep") - A nigh-unanimous discussion that could not be closed any other way -- I even think that a "no consensus" is somewhat lenient, and I would've closed as keep. Alakzi (now indef-blocked this wasn't relevant nor appropriate) and Andy (TfD nominator) were the only ones out of the dozen-or-so editors who commented on the TfD to advocate its deletion. All that being said, I personally would've voted for deletion if I had come across this TfD, but that is irrelevant to this DRV. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alakzi is only indef blocked by their own request. And you're again counting votes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that my comment about Alakzi's self-indef-block was out of line. I've amended my comment accordingly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 11:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or overturn to keep - There seemed to be a consensus that the template should be kept. Andy's position here basically seems to amount to "I was right and everyone else was wrong, so all their opinions shouldn't have counted". However, a relatively large number of people saw his arguments for deletion and yet thought the template should be kept anyway. In the end his arguments failed to be convincing to the participants in the discussion, and there clearly wasn't a consensus to delete the template. Calathan (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn to keep - Clear consensus that the template should be kept. Closing adminuser misrepresentated as no consensus, and I would have closed it as Keep. Andy, DRV should only be used for misrepresentation of consensus that led to deletion or keeping, which is not precisely the case here, instead what you're saying is just a blatant case of "I'm right and they're wrong" (now where is the essay for that...). Changing vote to Endorse per Mackensen's vote. --TL22 (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the closer, I'd like to make two comments in reply: firstly, I'm not an admin, as I stated in my close, and secondly: I determined "no consensus" on the balance of arguments, not, as Andy Mabbett alleges, by vote counting. I consider that some of the keep !votes were conditional, or not reasoned in policy, or the condition or the policy point was disputed by pro-deleters. On balance, as I explained, I thought the arguments roughly balanced which is why I closed as "no consensus". Of course if the consensus here is that I misweighed the arguments in any way I will respect that and take it as a learning experience. BethNaught (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Striked the speedy, and corrected my statement. Thanks. --TL22 (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"only two editors advocated deletion, compared with 9 explicit keep !votes" isn't counting votes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was only one part of my rationale. If I had been taking an exercise in vote-counting, I would have closed as keep. Please reread the part where I weighed up the arguments. BethNaught (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It could possibly also have been closed as keep, but the closer's rationale was reasonable. WP:COLOUR simply doesn't apply to the template namespace. It says so right on the tin. Even if it did, it's a guideline. Sure the template appears useless but the participants at TfD didn't feel that way, and in the absence of a governing policy that's the outcome. Mackensen(talk) 02:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both you and the closer are wrong on that point; WP:COLOUR explicitly states that its "advice on contrast ratios is applicable more generally"; even more importantly the WMF non-discrimination policy applies to all namespaces. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason it said that is because you yourselfadded that line during the middle of the debate. Some would accuse you of deliberately changing the goalposts to undermine your opponents' views. BethNaught (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And with this baleful attempt at making policy say what you want it to and then shoving your own words in the faces of people you disagree with as if your word was law, I've lost the last of whatever assumptions of good faith I still had towards Andy. This behavior reflects poorly on yourself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recall Raul654 joking--oh, must have been ten, twelve years ago--about changing policy during a discussion and then citing it to support his position. It was funny and we all laughed (also, he didn't do it). This is pathetic. Furthermore, unless I'm very much mistaken, WP:NDP applies to Foundation employees only, and doesn't govern in content discussions. Andy, did you have a different policy in mind? Mackensen(talk) 21:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This unilateral change of policy seems to warrant a (temporal) ban from TfD and maybe from DRV. It is disruptive to see an user attempting to challenge consensus and changing a policy to win against their oponents. Of course, any comments about this are welcome, as I'm not really sure about it. --TL22 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, that edit was made on 12 August, during the original debate, not during this DRV. It is also entirely reasonable on its face, and stood unchallenged for six weeks. Citing it here wasn't a great strategy, but not exactly the cynical manipulation you all seem to be assuming. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sorry Andy, the discussion as it stood at the time of the close could not have supported a delete result (even though the template is in fact useless, and is a good example of why 'consensus among whoever shows up' is kind of a pathological way to make essentially technical decisions). Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the template is in fact useless" It is this, not the number of votes, which TfD is supposed to determine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. TfD, like most Wikipedia processes, works with consensus exclusively. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Put another way: closing that discussion as delete would have been an invitation to end up right here at DRV, so either way we've already wasted more time discussing the significance of its uselessness than anyone has ever invested in actually using it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAndy Mabbett, please see WP:DRVPURPOSE. Your arguments fail the 5th point of what DRV is not. Furthermore, please note that DRV is not XfD Round 2, its for discussing misrepresentations of consensus in closures of deletion discussions. --TL22 (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see your argument for point 5, If your accusation is my failure to account for some points or some policy, that's a misinterpretation of consensus, not a procedural error. BethNaught (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Endorse, I have some sympathy for the point of view that User:Opabinia regalis puts forward above, but the truth of the matter here is that this process works by consensus, and consensus was not to delete the template. Lankiveil(speak to me) 10:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn for reclosing by an actual administrator. I don't know when it became OK for non-admins to close controversial discussions, which the closer clearly believed this was. WP:NAC doesn't quite reach policy/guideline status, but it's cited in the actual deletion policy page as providing useful explanations. It states quite clearly, "No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus". The general rule is that nonadministrators "may close some non-controversial discussions with "keep", "merge" or "redirect" closure when they can". This close falls outside the general rule and the specific analysis concerning "no consensus" outcomes, and should be overturned pending action by an administrator. I think that, on the merits, this was a bad close, and something of a supervote, with the would-be closer rejecting the consensus analysis as insufficient rather than determining it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few points:
Have you seen the backlog at TfD recently? There was recently (a couple of months ago) consensus at an RfC to allow non-admins to close discussions because the backlog was so bad. Even now there is a backlog going back to August 9. Other non-admins have been closing non-simple discussions; for example, Alakzi did before they requested a self-block. If non-admins had not helped out, the only major closer would have been Opabinia regalis, who is the only admin closing a significant number of discussions.
Can you please explain why you think I misread the debate and supervoted? I ask that both on content grounds and because I don't find your last sentence grammatically clear.
Do you believe an administrator would close the discussion as it stands in an effectively different manner?
In practice the outcome has been that non-admins can perform delete closures, by orphaning the template and applying a CSD tag. This has not AFAIK been controversial. My general point was "desperate times call for desperate measures" in point 1. BethNaught (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I'm willing to endorse this close as an admin, as BethNaught has closed it in the same way I would have. Lankiveil(speak to me) 09:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
I think that does help, thank you, though it is a pity we seem to have needed your help. Thincat (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on admin endorsers. I've been working slowly from the back of the backlog, but would have gotten to this one eventually, and would have done the same thing; in fact, you likely got a much more thoroughly explained closing rationale from BethNaught. I have to point it out on the rare occasion someone else is wordier than me! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
